A. Intellectual Property rights and patents protect pharmaceutical companies internationally
JAMES THUO GATHII , Albany Law School, 2003, Journal of Gender, Race and Justice, Vol. 7, No. 2, p. 267, Fall 2003, The Structural Power of Strong Pharmaceutical Patent Protection in U.S. Foreign Policy
My basic thesis in this paper is that the humanitarianism underlying U.S. assistance particularly in preventing the spread of the HIV/AIDS pandemic around the world plays a significant role in simultaneously disguising and legitimating the uncompromising support of the United States government for strong international pharmaceutical patent protection. Indeed, by loudly proclaiming its generosity, the United States manages to disguise the fact that its commitment to a strong regime of pharmaceutical patent protection has a lot to do with limiting access to antiretroviral drugs to large numbers of those infected with HIV/AIDS outside the United States.
Thus I show that there are two distinct, albeit mutually reinforcing, stances within U.S. foreign policy on HIV/AIDS. The first of these stances favors strong international pharmaceutical patent protection, unencumbered by any restrictions, as the best alternative to ensuring availability of drugs to treat those infected with HIV/AIDS. Unlike the first stance that is uncompromising in supporting patent protection, the second position is steeped in humanitarian gestures, such as extending U.S. assistance particularly in efforts to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS outside the United States. Strong patent protection is, however, the primary U.S. foreign policy position on how best to facilitate access to essential medicines under patents held by U.S. and western pharmaceutical corporations. In that sense, provision of humanitarian assistance ought to be understood as the policy prescription most compatible with the non-negotiability of strong pharmaceutical patent protection.
I also show that in addition to distancing the relationship between strong pharmaceutical patent protection and access to essential drugs by highlighting the more appealing image of the United States as a major benefactor of the global campaign against HIV/AIDS, U.S. foreign policy on HIV/AIDS has turned to poverty in sub-Saharan Africa as a major explanatory factor to account for the extremely low level of access to antiretroviral drugs on patents to treat the disease. Increasing U.S. financial support to combat the spread of the pandemic while simultaneously harping on the argument that Africans are too poor to afford antiretroviral drugs plays particularly well to ward off criticism regarding the apparent harshness of U.S. support for strong patent protection.
1NC Shell
B. 1) Cheap drugs intended only for Africa will be sold to other countries - turns case.
The hefty discounts and free medicines offered to poor countries by most companies suggest that profits from the developing world are not an essential part of their business strategies. But there is a real threat that drugs subject to compulsory licences in developing countries could undermine profits and the incentive to develop new drugs. In the past year, several large hauls of Aids medicines produced by the patent owners and intended for sale at low prices in Africa have found their way back to Europe. If this can happen to medicines that are under reasonably strict controls, it isn't difficult to imagine what will happen when the drugs are being produced and distributed by organisations that hold no allegiance to the company that developed them. Developing a new drug is an expensive business, estimates put it at between $500 million (R3,2-billion) and $1-billion (R6,5-billion). If companies can't recoup returns from the few drugs that they actually get to market, then they're unlikely to make that investment. Worryingly, there is growing evidence that drug companies are reducing their investment in anti-retrovirals - the number of new drugs in development has fallen almost 30% in the past three years. Though Aids can't be cured, it is treatable, sometimes for years, but only if new drugs emerge for the large number of patients who build up resistance to their current regime of anti-retrovirals.
2) The spread of generic drugs destroys incentives to produce new drugs and global competition
The hefty discounts and free medicines offered to poor countries by most companies suggest that profits from the developing world are not an essential part of their business strategies. But there is a real threat that drugs subject to compulsory licences in developing countries could undermine profits and the incentive to develop new drugs. In the past year, several large hauls of Aids medicines produced by the patent owners and intended for sale at low prices in Africa have found their way back to Europe. If this can happen to medicines that are under reasonably strict controls, it isn't difficult to imagine what will happen when the drugs are being produced and distributed by organisations that hold no allegiance to the company that developed them. Developing a new drug is an expensive business, estimates put it at between $500 million (R3,2-billion) and $1-billion (R6,5-billion). If companies can't recoup returns from the few drugs that they actually get to market, then they're unlikely to make that investment. Worryingly, there is growing evidence that drug companies are reducing their investment in anti-retrovirals - the number of new drugs in development has fallen almost 30% in the past three years. Though Aids can't be cured, it is treatable, sometimes for years, but only if new drugs emerge for the large number of patients who build up resistance to their current regime of anti-retrovirals.
Only four years after the discovery of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in 1983, the first HIV/AIDS drug (zidovudine or AZT), was discovered and developed by a pharmaceutical company and was made available to patients. Over time, treatment has moved from monotherapy, to dual therapy, to combination therapy, with three or more agents being utilized simultaneously. Treatments that were initially offered to patients with advanced HIV immunosuppression due to strong side effects are now used as early as the HIV diagnosis is made.
This has been possible thanks to continued R&D efforts of the research-based pharmaceutical companies to deliver novel treatments, which are more effective and less toxic for the benefit of patients. Over time, the pharmaceutical industry has discovered and developed 24 HIV/AIDS-specific drugs in four different new classes, each offering a different approach to fighting the virus that causes AIDS. Overall, since the mid-1990s, the death rate from AIDS in developed countries has dropped by about 70 percent thanks to pharmaceutical innovation.
Despite the significant evolution of basic science and applied technology related to discovery and development of HIV/AIDS medicines and vaccines, there are still many unanswered questions regarding drug toxicity, resistance and, foremost, an effective way of killing the virus. Because of the continuing limitations to existing therapies such as resistance, end-organ toxicity, side effects and significant impact on quality of life, drug companies have not ceased their efforts to look for new, improved therapies. The progress in development of novel drugs and effective and safe vaccines is fundamental to solving the problem of HIV/AIDS in the future. Researching and developing new drugs is the R&D companies' major contribution to society and what they excel at.
JAMES THUO GATHII , Albany Law School, 2003, Journal of Gender, Race and Justice, Vol. 7, No. 2, p. 267, Fall 2003, The Structural Power of Strong Pharmaceutical Patent Protection in U.S. Foreign Policy
My basic thesis in this paper is that the humanitarianism underlying U.S. assistance particularly in preventing the spread of the HIV/AIDS pandemic around the world plays a significant role in simultaneously disguising and legitimating the uncompromising support of the United States government for strong international pharmaceutical patent protection. Indeed, by loudly proclaiming its generosity, the United States manages to disguise the fact that its commitment to a strong regime of pharmaceutical patent protection has a lot to do with limiting access to antiretroviral drugs to large numbers of those infected with HIV/AIDS outside the United States.
Thus I show that there are two distinct, albeit mutually reinforcing, stances within U.S. foreign policy on HIV/AIDS. The first of these stances favors strong international pharmaceutical patent protection, unencumbered by any restrictions, as the best alternative to ensuring availability of drugs to treat those infected with HIV/AIDS. Unlike the first stance that is uncompromising in supporting patent protection, the second position is steeped in humanitarian gestures, such as extending U.S. assistance particularly in efforts to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS outside the United States. Strong patent protection is, however, the primary U.S. foreign policy position on how best to facilitate access to essential medicines under patents held by U.S. and western pharmaceutical corporations. In that sense, provision of humanitarian assistance ought to be understood as the policy prescription most compatible with the non-negotiability of strong pharmaceutical patent protection.
I also show that in addition to distancing the relationship between strong pharmaceutical patent protection and access to essential drugs by highlighting the more appealing image of the United States as a major benefactor of the global campaign against HIV/AIDS, U.S. foreign policy on HIV/AIDS has turned to poverty in sub-Saharan Africa as a major explanatory factor to account for the extremely low level of access to antiretroviral drugs on patents to treat the disease. Increasing U.S. financial support to combat the spread of the pandemic while simultaneously harping on the argument that Africans are too poor to afford antiretroviral drugs plays particularly well to ward off criticism regarding the apparent harshness of U.S. support for strong patent protection.
1NC Shell
B. 1) Cheap drugs intended only for Africa will be sold to other countries - turns case.
Dr John Kilama, from Uganda, is the President of Global Bioscience Development Institute, January 2004, http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2004/january/aids.htm
The hefty discounts and free medicines offered to poor countries by most companies suggest that profits from the developing world are not an essential part of their business strategies. But there is a real threat that drugs subject to compulsory licences in developing countries could undermine profits and the incentive to develop new drugs. In the past year, several large hauls of Aids medicines produced by the patent owners and intended for sale at low prices in Africa have found their way back to Europe. If this can happen to medicines that are under reasonably strict controls, it isn't difficult to imagine what will happen when the drugs are being produced and distributed by organisations that hold no allegiance to the company that developed them. Developing a new drug is an expensive business, estimates put it at between $500 million (R3,2-billion) and $1-billion (R6,5-billion). If companies can't recoup returns from the few drugs that they actually get to market, then they're unlikely to make that investment. Worryingly, there is growing evidence that drug companies are reducing their investment in anti-retrovirals - the number of new drugs in development has fallen almost 30% in the past three years. Though Aids can't be cured, it is treatable, sometimes for years, but only if new drugs emerge for the large number of patients who build up resistance to their current regime of anti-retrovirals.
2) The spread of generic drugs destroys incentives to produce new drugs and global competition
Dr John Kilama, from Uganda, is the President of Global Bioscience Development Institute, January 2004, http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2004/january/aids.htm
The hefty discounts and free medicines offered to poor countries by most companies suggest that profits from the developing world are not an essential part of their business strategies. But there is a real threat that drugs subject to compulsory licences in developing countries could undermine profits and the incentive to develop new drugs. In the past year, several large hauls of Aids medicines produced by the patent owners and intended for sale at low prices in Africa have found their way back to Europe. If this can happen to medicines that are under reasonably strict controls, it isn't difficult to imagine what will happen when the drugs are being produced and distributed by organisations that hold no allegiance to the company that developed them. Developing a new drug is an expensive business, estimates put it at between $500 million (R3,2-billion) and $1-billion (R6,5-billion). If companies can't recoup returns from the few drugs that they actually get to market, then they're unlikely to make that investment. Worryingly, there is growing evidence that drug companies are reducing their investment in anti-retrovirals - the number of new drugs in development has fallen almost 30% in the past three years. Though Aids can't be cured, it is treatable, sometimes for years, but only if new drugs emerge for the large number of patients who build up resistance to their current regime of anti-retrovirals.
1NC Shell
C. R&D is essential to solve for AIDS—Turns case
ICC Varembé – 12 December 2003,Geneva Pharma Forum,
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:gmX3iJH0YgAJ:www.ifpma.org/documents/NR543/GPF_HIV_leaflet_final.doc+~Pharmaceutical+~innovation+AIDS&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=15&gl=us&client=safari
Only four years after the discovery of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in 1983, the first HIV/AIDS drug (zidovudine or AZT), was discovered and developed by a pharmaceutical company and was made available to patients. Over time, treatment has moved from monotherapy, to dual therapy, to combination therapy, with three or more agents being utilized simultaneously. Treatments that were initially offered to patients with advanced HIV immunosuppression due to strong side effects are now used as early as the HIV diagnosis is made.
This has been possible thanks to continued R&D efforts of the research-based pharmaceutical companies to deliver novel treatments, which are more effective and less toxic for the benefit of patients. Over time, the pharmaceutical industry has discovered and developed 24 HIV/AIDS-specific drugs in four different new classes, each offering a different approach to fighting the virus that causes AIDS. Overall, since the mid-1990s, the death rate from AIDS in developed countries has dropped by about 70 percent thanks to pharmaceutical innovation.
Despite the significant evolution of basic science and applied technology related to discovery and development of HIV/AIDS medicines and vaccines, there are still many unanswered questions regarding drug toxicity, resistance and, foremost, an effective way of killing the virus. Because of the continuing limitations to existing therapies such as resistance, end-organ toxicity, side effects and significant impact on quality of life, drug companies have not ceased their efforts to look for new, improved therapies. The progress in development of novel drugs and effective and safe vaccines is fundamental to solving the problem of HIV/AIDS in the future. Researching and developing new drugs is the R&D companies' major contribution to society and what they excel at.